Saturday, March 31, 2012

We are confident that our readers will be able to count on Keith Olbermann to deliver critical information on a yearly basis.

Yankees...Jesus Montero probably can’t catch a lick and the Yankees didn’t have first base open for him to move to. But a player like him, with that kind of high ball opposite field power, is far more scarce than a Michael Pineda at his best, let alone a Michael Pineda who didn’t gain velocity in the off-season, only weight. The Yankees seem deliberately intent on ignoring the reality that they are aging dangerously on offense. I realize that part of the solution to that is to free up the DH spot that Montero would’ve filled, by a rotation of the wheezing Alex Rodriguez, the unpredictable Nick Swisher, the aging Derek Jeter, and the calcified Andruw Jones and Raul Ibanez. But it would seem those guys, and the offense, would’ve benefited a lot more from taking days off and letting the kid get 600 plate appearances and 30 homers.

Red Sox...Most importantly, to paraphrase long-ago skipper Joe M. Morgan, “who is running this nine?” New manager Bobby Valentine, showing my earlier criticisms of him may have been extreme and unfair, wanted Jose Iglesias at shortstop and hard-hitting, rapidly-improving Ryan Lavarnway behind the plate (Lavarnway being the only Red Sox player who didn’t panic down the stretch last year). He was overruled – and he certainly wasn’t overruled by newbie GM Ben Cherington. Years ago Terry Francona, John Farrell, and Theo Epstein came to the realization that Daniel Bard didn’t have the emotional chops to be a starting pitcher, and was best served firing gas out of the pen. They’re all gone, Bard was shoved into the rotation, is flailing just as the former bosses knew he would, and now presumably staggers back to the bullpen as broken goods behind the physically sketchy Andrew Bailey (Mark Melancon might close for them yet).

AMERICAN LEAGUE EAST FORECAST:

Faint heart never won fair predicting contests. I’m convinced about the winner, and taking a flier on the runners-up. It’s possible one of the Wild Cards comes out of this division but I’m not convinced any more. The Yankees and the Red Sox are not locks, and they are so not locks that I will assume New York will finally suffer the kind of position-player calamity that accelerates its decrepitude. TAMPA BAY is your champion, TORONTO second, NEW YORK third (close), BOSTON fourth, and BALTIMORE should’ve been relegated already.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Just in case KO is lurking here, I hope that he is finally able to get the platform that he wants. He is an extremely talented, but clearly volatile, broadcaster. Seems like KO, Oscar Robertson and Rick Barry would be three peas in a pod, and all of them would hate each other -- perhaps with good reason.

5 years from now, I can see Keith Olbermann in a vicious legal battle with Cedar Rapids Public Access, stemming from the fact he clearly wished to be paid in all-he-can-eat low sodium saltines, but they only left a box of regular in his dressing stairwell.

Some famous people I listen to because of their expertise in a given field.
Some famous people I admire for their well-rounded expertise.
And some famous people.... are like Kim Kardashian and Keith Olbermann.

I'm surprised he didn't label the Yankees or Red Sox "the worst team of persons in the world". Maybe if O'Reilly rooted for them....

John Powers has a good review of Rachel Maddow's book at American Prospect, which articulates for me my problem with Olbermann and MSNBC as a whole, even as it explains why I like Rachel Maddow so much. This is what he has to say about Olbermann:

Watching [Maddow's] program, you can see how carefully she studied Olbermann’s way of juggling entertainment, politics, and headlines. She learned that a news show should be a show, with humor, shifting rhythms of monologue and dialogue, catchily labeled segments, and a deployment of old clips that aspires to prestidigitation. This vast galaxy is a wonder to be exploited, whether you’re tracing how presidents have talked up war over the decades or how once--maverick Republicans like John McCain went from embracing cap-and-trade to shunning it. Maddow also grasped—and shared—Olbermann’s respect for language. No news show in history has ever been so fastidiously, even preeningly written as Countdown. But where Olbermann increasingly came to read his lines, even his funny ones, with an overbearing, almost martial precision—by God, he was going to let you know how magnificently written his program was—Maddow has always been shrewd at knowing how to make herself appealing. Although The Rachel Maddow Show is probably the second most painstakingly written news show ever, she reads her script in a deliberately shambly way that feels down-to-earth. (Think of her wearing that blue hard hat in the terrific MSNBC promo at the Hoover Dam.) Her persona appeals to the viewer’s intelligence by being hard to catch in the act of being intelligent.

I never watched CurrentTV so I never got a chance to see Olbermann there, but Powers is spot on about his time at MSNBC and it's why Powers is my favorite (movie and) cultural critic of all time (I like him more even than Matthew Arnold, and that says a lot because I'm a Victorianist).

And some famous people.... are like Kim Kardashian and Keith Olbermann.

Are you being hyperbolic? I'm not a particular Olbermann fan, but I'm aware that he has skills and talents unlike anyone else. In a way this is similar to Rush Limbaugh - through his unique voice, he has transformed and transcended the genre that he found himself in.

Rachel Maddow sort of backed into radio as a fulltime career -- if she'd spent years in J-school and/or years as an itinerant DJ, she'd have inevitably been forced to sound like everybody else instead of developing her own distinct persona.

well, I could have added Limbaugh to the list :) Yes, to be fair, Olbermann and Limbaugh DO deserve a different category than the Kardashians of the world. They do have skills and talents. So did Genghis Khan.

Olbermann was terrific from about 2006-2008, but early in Obama's Presidency he lost a half a step. His family issues + ouster from MSNBC almost certainly took a lot out of him, and Current never seemed to fit him when I watched. Hopefully, he can find a home that suits his talents (HBO?) However insufferable he might be to work with, Olbermann is much too talented to stay down for long. Whatever his next gig is, I hope he leaves some time for baseball.

---

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves on Toronto. As snazzy as the lineup looks, I think that rotation is at least a year away. The Jays have all the pieces to be a contender, it's just a matter of them taking that next big step, and I'd still bet on the Yankees and Red Sox and their proven talent than the Jays and their potential.

The episode had moments, but it did seem like they were trying to do a goofy Limbaugh episode and figure out why later. The song was pretty entertaining and I'm surprised Limbaugh was able to do it at all with those cochlear implants.

Reports are now quoting Current sources leaking that Olberman went through 8 car services, complaining that the drivers smelled and talked to him. Olberman is apparently going on Letterman this week, presumably to give his side of this compelling human interest story.

I like the fact that Ray acknowledged the day in his post and still didn't get that it was a joke.

I actually did check to see if it was a joke. I typed "Johnny Damon" into a Google news search and got some hits that he had signed with the Orioles for 2y/$10M. I figured that was good enough, and so didn't bother to click on any of the links.

Not that I see why Johnny Damon makes for a good April Fools joke, such that I needed to fully investigate some random story that nobody cares about, but whatever. I was fooled. Yay.

Except for the one disaster in Chicago, where Ozzie and Kennie jerked him all over (playing CF and leading off)

Oh come on. His defensive deployment in 2008 is very similar to his usage in his typical 2007, where he was just as likely to bat second as sixth. He had a bad year in Chicago, it happens. You can fault those two for dumping him too quickly and for too little, but his crappy 2008 was on Swisher.

Just in case KO is lurking here, I hope that he is finally able to get the platform that he wants.

What platform does Olbermann want that he hasn't gotten? He's had his own highly watched show multiple times, being paid millions for his efforts (or, according to the heads of whatever this channel's name is, lack thereof).

Oh come on. His defensive deployment in 2008 is very similar to his usage in his typical 2007, where he was just as likely to bat second as sixth. He had a bad year in Chicago, it happens. You can fault those two for dumping him too quickly and for too little, but his crappy 2008 was on Swisher.

Guillen crapped all over him, with the usual "too passive" nonsense about a guy with a good eye.

It's certainly on Swisher, but the White Sox management did their fair share to make things worse.

What platform does Olbermann want that he hasn't gotten? He's had his own highly watched show multiple times, being paid millions for his efforts (or, according to the heads of whatever this channel's name is, lack thereof).

I think some people just don't like having a boss. My dad is like that; he started his own business in part because he isn't comfortable being deferential to another person's opinion.

What platform does Olbermann want that he hasn't gotten? He's had his own highly watched show multiple times, being paid millions for his efforts (or, according to the heads of whatever this channel's name is, lack thereof).

KO clearly wants a network-quality broadcast with complete creative control - a la Louis CK's deal with FX. I rarely tuned in to Countdown once it moved to Current, but the production values were slightly better than the Robin Byrd Show.

I do not know if KO with full creative control and strong production values would succeed or fail, but it sure would be interesting to see what happened.

ew manager Bobby Valentine, showing my earlier criticisms of him may have been extreme and unfair, wanted Jose Iglesias at shortstop and hard-hitting, rapidly-improving Ryan Lavarnway behind the plate ... He was overruled

Is this piece of un-sourced speculation just going to get repeated back and forth through the sport-osphere until everyone believes it as fact?

A perfectly rational fear... While I suppose we share an ideology, I've always found Keith insufferable... he gives elitist liberals a bad name.

Back when he was blogging at MLB.com, I remember commenting on one of his Mantle hero-worship/swipe-at-PEDs articles and being surprised at him going off on me in the comments.... I supposed I egged him on a bit with some further jibes, eventually goading him into an "Updated" to the posting, where I believe he referenced basements and my mother. No self-respecting primate is a shrinking violet in the fight club of internet arguing, of course, but I couldn't help but be amused by the level of self-righteous pettiness he reached.

FWIW, the buzz is that Olberman split with CurrenTv over 'smelly car service drivers' who 'talk to him' too much.

Also, it's much more specific. To some in the American South, most of the people who work at my company are "rich people". But if you factor in the cost of living up here, I consider them (and myself) solidly middle-class. 1% of income earners in the country gives you a better idea of not only how they're doing, but how they're doing in relation to the rest of the country.

Also, it's much more specific. To some in the American South, most of the people who work at my company are "rich people". But if you factor in the cost of living up here, I consider them (and myself) solidly middle-class. 1% of income earners in the country gives you a better idea of not only how they're doing, but how they're doing in relation to the rest of the country.

Huh? If you make over 343K (top 1% in 2009) in New York City, it's a lot less money than in Arkansas. Top 1% isn't adjusted for anything. Top 10% is 112K. Top 20% is something like 75K.

COLA isn't a unique concept. "Rich People" does the job just the same as "the 1%." The whole point about "the 1%" is a framing device. Us vs. them. I think it's good propaganda, it's just horrible style. I hate using numbers as proper nouns.

"Rich People" does the job just the same as "the 1%." The whole point about "the 1%" is a framing device. Us vs. them. I think it's good propaganda, it's just horrible style. I hate using numbers as proper nouns.
</i>

Right, the main point is to get people in the 10th and 90th percentiles both to identify with the middle class rather than with the wealthy. I doubt that model describes reality very well -- I suspect that the typical member of the 90th percentile has more in common with the top 1% than they do with the bottom 10%, both in terms of politics and lifestyle. I'm also not sure how well this marketing strategy has worked; certainly far less than 99% of the country sympathizes with Occupy Wall Street.

certainly far less than 99% of the country sympathizes with Occupy Wall Street.

You're assuming that people dislike those of other income brackets, or are at least hold opposing interests. I'm not near the 1%, but I don't see any reason to have hard feelings towards them. On its own, there's nothing wrong with making money.

Right, the main point is to get people in the 10th and 90th percentiles both to identify with the middle class rather than with the wealthy. I doubt that model describes reality very well -- I suspect that the typical member of the 90th percentile has more in common with the top 1% than they do with the bottom 10%, both in terms of politics and lifestyle. I'm also not sure how well this marketing strategy has worked; certainly far less than 99% of the country sympathizes with Occupy Wall Street.

The problem with the formulation is that people's real beef is with the .01% (or .0001%). People making 400K aren't driving the national debate--they're just really well off. People making 10-20 million a year are the ones with the megaphone in government's ear.